From: Mark Hubbart <discord@...>
Date: 2004-06-15T03:35:01+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1


On Jun 14, 2004, at 9:35 AM, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> Even Nathaniel himself admitted the decision to order tests 
> alphabetically was
> an arbitrary one.

I'm sorry to say, but I think Nathaniel is wrong about that :) I'd like 
to think that he was just being nice and conceding a point that he felt 
was perhaps *close enough* to the truth not to have to argue over it.

But it remains that you called the alphabetical ordering (and the 
decision to use it) arbitrary. Arbitrariness, by definition, requires 
either randomness or capriciousness. I think this is not supported by 
evidence. as for the ordering itself being either random or capricious, 
well, that's silly. It may not be the ordering you expect, but it 
*certainly* isn't random. As for the decision: If it were my software 
library, I would feel insulted were someone to call my decision 
capricious, if I had put some time into working it out. And telling 
someone that their decision was random, when it involves a project that 
they built, and they probably care about deeply and are proud of, seems 
very rude. Calling the ordering arbitrary was okay, since you didn't 
know better at the time; but calling his *decision* arbitrary was 
uncalled for.

Having the option to order tests is good. Having multiple output 
formats is good. I suspect that both of those will end up being 
absorbed by the Test::Unit framework, and your project will have done 
it's job, contributing to the quality and flexibility of Ruby's 
libraries. If they aren't added, I suspect you will flesh out your 
framework to be as feature-rich as the official one. And that will be 
good too. :)

> Accuracy is 100%.  Annoyance at having this discussion is somewhere 
> above that.

Diplomacy goes a long ways toward avoiding unwanted flame wars.

--Mark